Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

I don't claim to know that and never have, therefore your claim that I have is both a strawman and a red herring. What I've claimed is that your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls juxtaposed with what the scientists have produced. Get your **** together and show us your positive evidence and necessary inference that such a thingy exists apart from your twisted fantasy.

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1345010130413_2478618.png

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What I've claimed is that your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls juxtaposed with what the scientists have produced.

     I know that you 'have fallen in love with the aliens', but if you are so interested to get knowing, this is the worst case scenario as a hypothesis for the assumptions.
     1. You will never be able to reject it 100%.
     2. If you find some traces of some ILFs taking part in our design, creation and operation (I am not claiming that you are at the level to understand that) - this is even worse to the truth value of the assumptions. In that case Mr. Ci will immediately start asking the questions: and who has created the aliens?, from where we go into unknowable world of second order.
     3. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the present status quo (the Big Bang 'theory'), or in the classical status quo (the religion) - the question with the intermediary in the process of the Creation remains - no matter whether by whom or what is the launching of the process. The question: are we really the first and still the best? still hangs ... after all 13.8 BN years is a lot of time & everything could have happened.
     If you have any evidence and any serious proofs that the aliens cannot exist and we are not created for sure by any meta-intelligence - you may feel free to present it?
     N.B. Pay attention that the red **** in the light spectrum is not an evidence of anything else except for the red shift in the light when travelling for a long time and at a long distance in the Universe.
     BTW I am not denying entirely the Big Bang 'theory'. What I am denying is the way of your reasoning - nobody can acquire knowledge in that way, without even understanding it before that ... simply by quoting & assigning beliefs to some other beliefs and credentials. The risk of acquiring fake knowledge in that way is very high.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

If you have any evidence and any serious proofs that the aliens cannot exist and we are not created for sure by any meta-intelligence - you may feel free to present it?

Oh, so you are now going to claim if he can't disprove your statement then it must be true? I wonder which fallacy that is....

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Oh, so you are now going to claim if he can't disprove your statement then it must be true?

No, I am not claiming that - what I claim is that if he cannot eliminate 100% from the equation of the existence & participation of aliens in the design & operation of our biosphere and the Universe, a not entirely bad idea is to make some belief revision of the understanding of the world - like for example how one can believe things he cannot personally understand and to believe them just because some other people claim that they believe them (which does not necessarily mean that they really do).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Oh. You were using it as a red herring.

Thanks for clearing up which fallacy you intended to use.

1 Reply

Herald says:

Quote:

N.B. Pay attention that the red **** in the light spectrum is not an evidence of anything else except for the red shift in the light when travelling for a long time and at a long distance in the Universe.

Herald inadvertently confirms what we've thought all along: that he's talking ****.

You might actually do a little bit of research on what the red shift actually is,Herald, instead of posing your endless "what if" questions with no data to back them up. It 's been established science for more than a century now, well before the Big Bang was even conceived of. And as was subsequently discovered, red shift in galaxies is confirmatory for the Big Bang too. It's been proved many times over the decades. If you've ever gotten a speeding ticket, you're a victim of the red shift. It's an evidence of the principle that radar guns operate on, for example. And there is absolutely no evidence that light gets tired and slows down as in the lame hypothesis you came up with. Try getting at least a little acquanintance with the facts before you come up with your non-facts.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What I've claimed is that your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls juxtaposed with what the scientists have produced.
I know that you 'have fallen in love with the aliens', but if you are so interested to get knowing, this is the worst case scenario as a hypothesis for the assumptions.
1. You will never be able to reject it 100%.

The only thing I reject is your attempted argument for its existence. You've shown us no evidence and only fallacious reasoning.

Quote:

2. If you find some traces of some ILFs taking part in our design, creation and operation (I am not claiming that you are at the level to understand that) - this is even worse to the truth value of the assumptions. In that case Mr. Ci will immediately start asking the questions: and who has created the aliens?, from where we go into unknowable world of second order.

How will I find any evidence if you won't bring it here? And ci is right for pointing out infinite regress. You apparently have no redress to that regress, as you refuse to address it.

Quote:

3. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the present status quo (the Big Bang 'theory'), or in the classical status quo (the religion) - the question with the intermediary in the process of the Creation remains - no matter whether by whom or what is the launching of the process. The question: are we really the first and still the best? still hangs ... after all 13.8 BN years is a lot of time & everything could have happened.

Well, show us some evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy, then.

Quote:

If you have any evidence and any serious proofs that the aliens cannot exist and we are not created for sure by any meta-intelligence - you may feel free to present it?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam again. You're not keeping up. You're also attempting to shift the burden of proof. You made the alien/ILF/god-thingy claim; it's up to you to support it with evidence. Got any?

Quote:

N.B. Pay attention that the red **** in the light spectrum is not an evidence of anything else except for the red shift in the light when travelling for a long time and at a long distance in the Universe.

I'm not aware of any red **** in the light spectrum. What does this have to do with your putative alien/ILF/god-thingy? Oh, right. You're trying to open up a gap in scientific knowledge to wedge it into. Fail.

Quote:

BTW I am not denying entirely the Big Bang 'theory'. What I am denying is the way of your reasoning - nobody can acquire knowledge in that way, without even understanding it before that ... simply by quoting & assigning beliefs to some other beliefs and credentials. The risk of acquiring fake knowledge in that way is very high.

My way of reasoning is to demand evidence and fallacy-free reasoning. Neither of which you have been able to supply. Welcome to Failsville. Population: you.

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thanks for clearing up which fallacy you intended to use.

Giys, may be you don't understand something - I am the titulary of that blog, and I am the one who is to say which is 'red herring' and which is 'infrared shift in the net of the fishmongers'.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You might actually do a little bit of research on what the red shift actually is,Herald

O.K., why don't you tell us what are all the possible explanations of the red shiFt? ... as plausible hypothesis, in the first place.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

...I am the titulary of that blog, and I am the one who is to say which is 'red herring' and which is 'infrared shift in the net of the fishmongers'.

Nope. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to remake the rules of logic. Fail again.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It 's been established science for more than a century now

     Unfortunately without any serious verification & validation. In the Computability Theory, and especially in its sub-field Complexity Theory there is a famous classical theorem of Goedel dealing with the issue of incompleteness of axiomatic systems. Are you curious to know what the theorem has proved: no recursively axiomatized mathematical system can be both complete & consistent ... and do you need any subtitles to that?
     FTWW, this means that we cannot prove in a particular formal model that this particular formal model is consistent - the verification & validation has to be done by means that are uncorrelated to the model, from where automatically follows that you cannot verify the 'expansion of the Universe' with the data from the red shiFt & the CMB ... and you should pay attention that we are not even mentioning that the red shift (light) and the CMB (EM waves) are actually correlated & are comprising in fact one and the same evidence, rather than different pieces of evidence.
     BTW, in absolutely the same way one cannot verify any hypothesis about any God-of-the-Gaps 'theories' with the data on the grounds of which the inferences of that theories have been made.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Nice try. I've been wondering how long it would take you to discover and misrepresent Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The theorems do allow comparisons of systems to select for the more internally consistent, evidence-based, nearly complete one. In such a comparison, your evidence-free alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps falls flat when compared to the empirical, naturalistic processes and models propounded by the scientists.

You still ain't got nuthin,' bruh. Nuthin' but hand-waving and obfuscation. Won't work on people who know how to reason critically. Try another tack, why don't you?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/goodmorning.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Nope. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to remake the rules of logic. Fail again.

What logic you are talking about - is the 'broken record of the aliens' your logic, or perhaps the verification of a hypothesis with the data and the inference by which it has been made?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I've been wondering how long it would take you to discover and misrepresent Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

     If you don't like the interpretation of the classical theorems in Information Science, you may use the classical standards for verification & validation (ISO, NIST, IEEE, ITU-T, etc.) for whatever you like - everywhere there the verification & validation is done by external and non-correlated processes, by external and independent parties, or by matching against external standard models ... of some other science.
     This system of self-evaluation 'by a consensus' cannot not guarantee a quality of service ... notwithstanding what your understanding of the theorem of Gödel might be.
     Where is your proof that self-assessment by consensus is the best way to assess something ... especially when that something is of common interest to the self-assessors?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Nope. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to remake the rules of logic. Fail again.
What logic you are talking about - is the 'broken record of the aliens' your logic, or perhaps the verification of a hypothesis with the data and the inference by which it has been made?

Stop repeating the same fallacies over and over and over and over again and I promise to your alien/ILF/god-thingy that I'll stop pointing it out. Wink

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I've been wondering how long it would take you to discover and misrepresent Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
     If you don't like the interpretation of the classical theorems in Information Science, you may use the classical standards for verification & validation (ISO, NIST, IEEE, ITU-T, etc.) for whatever you like - everywhere there the verification & validation is done by external and non-correlated processes, by external and independent parties, or by matching against external standard models ... of some other science.
     This system of self-evaluation 'by a consensus' cannot not guarantee a quality of service ... notwithstanding what your understanding of the theorem of Gödel might be.
     Where is your proof that self-assessment by consensus is the best way to assess something ... especially when that something is of common interest to the self-assessors?

Speaking of broken records, more red herring.

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to the scientific explanations and models. When are you going to bring some legitimate, genuine, positive evidence and fallacy-free necessary inference? My guess is................................never. Laughing

4:0

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I wonder which fallacy that is ....

You are talking as if you can prove the non-existence of aliens for the whole Universe and for any age - why don't you show us your proof of that?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to the scientific explanations and models.

Red herring. To answer something that is irrelevant to the issue of self-assessment is called 'red herring' in any understanding of the world. BTW we have heard that broken record - do you have anything to add?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
I wonder which fallacy that is ....
You are talking as if you can prove the non-existence of aliens for the whole Universe and for any age - why don't you show us your proof of that?

Nope. You're making the claim for it, you provide the evidence for it. This has been explained to you numerous times. Pay attention and use your memory banks, please. No shifting the burden of proof. Where's your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-claim that denies genuine medical support for dying children in favor of faith healing?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know